By judgment no. 2449/2025, published on 7 November 2025, the Court of Genoa dismissed the opposition brought by several guarantors in complex proceedings concerning a significant exposure of over EUR 5 million arising from a long‑term financial transaction. The proceedings related to a loan granted more than a decade earlier to a company which was subsequently declared bankrupt, in respect of which the guarantors had increased their commitments up to a particularly high cap.
The claimant – now assignee of the entire position following a securitisation transaction – had proved in court its title to the exposure through a set of public documents and contractual evidence. The Court regarded the evidential framework as entirely sufficient, noting that the assignment was “adequately documented (…) not only by the undisputed publication in the Official Gazette but also by the filing (…) of the notice of assignment and the related agreement”.
One of the central issues in the dispute concerned the validity of a settlement proposal signed in 2016, which the opposing parties had sought to disown. However, the handwriting expert report established “beyond any reasonable doubt” the authenticity of the signatures, leading the Judge to describe that objection as “deserving of rejection as manifestly frivolous”. The Court further recalled that the acknowledgement of the financial exposure contained in the proposal has autonomous effect, stating that it “is unaffected by any subsequent invalidity of the agreement”, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
A further point of interest concerned the operation of the clause in the omnibus guarantee which extended to five years the time‑limit for enforcing the guarantee. Referring to Supreme Court order no. 9674/2025, the Court reiterated the full derogability of Article 1957 of the Civil Code and the sufficiency of an out‑of‑court demand to preserve the creditor’s rights, thereby rejecting the guarantors’ plea of lapse. It was also established that the claimant had acted within the agreed period, after receiving from the bankruptcy trustee the information which rendered the obligations once again enforceable.
Lastly, the Court rejected the guarantors’ attempt to limit their liability in proportion to the inheritance share of another deceased guarantor. The decision pointed out that, in the absence of an inventory drawn up within the time‑limit laid down by law, the heirs “must be regarded as having accepted the inheritance unconditionally”, with the result that full joint and several liability remains in place.
In light of these findings, the Court confirmed the full effectiveness of the obligations attributable to the opposing parties and ordered them to reimburse the litigation costs as well as the costs of the expert report.
The creditor company was represented by Cassinelli Studio Legale, with Nicola Cassinelli and Francesca Minelli.